No foul on thrower-in at end of game?

[Adam]

No, the case play says to ignore the "violation" of crossing the plane unless it actually interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throwin. In that case, go directly to technical foul, do not pass Delay of Game Warning.
It says nothing about ignoring an actual foul.
Case play 9.2.10, still in there.

[DesMoines]

Had this play earlier this year. Less than 5 seconds, clock running, so B1 just steps across end line and wraps up thrower.
Tweet. T.
B1 looks at me, shrugs, and says, "What else was I supposed to do?"

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

Had this play earlier this year. Less than 5 seconds, clock running, so B1 just steps across end line and wraps up thrower.
Tweet. T.
B1 looks at me, shrugs, and says, "What else was I supposed to do?"

Why the T and not the intentional? Did you go team T or player T?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Why the T and not the intentional? Did you go team T or player T?

Right:
contacting thrower = INT
contacting ball = T

[Adam]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Right:
contacting thrower = INT
contacting ball = T

Yep, and crossing the line is simply a Team T (not assessed to the player).

[DesMoines]

I went Team T. They'd already had a DOG warning and Team T for knocking the ball away after a score so they could set up for their press. Upon reflection, I suppose I could (and maybe should) have gone INT, but thought that since the action was a delay, that's where I went.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

I went Team T. They'd already had a DOG warning and Team T for knocking the ball away after a score so they could set up for their press. Upon reflection, I suppose I could (and maybe should) have gone INT, but thought that since the action was a delay, that's where I went.

Fair enough, I was wondering. I can make a lot of similar "upon reflection" statements.

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by DesMoines

I went Team T. They'd already had a DOG warning and Team T for knocking the ball away after a score so they could set up for their press. Upon reflection, I suppose I could (and maybe should) have gone INT, but thought that since the action was a delay, that's where I went.

I understand your way of thinking about this, but you didn't make the correct ruling. You'll nail it next time.

[Mark Padgett]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, the case play says to ignore the "violation" of crossing the plane unless it actually interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throwin. In that case, go directly to technical foul, do not pass Delay of Game Warning.
It says nothing about ignoring an actual foul.
Case play 9.2.10, still in there.

Yep - that's it. Of course, the alien case book says you are supposed to turn the violator into a cereal box, or something like that.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

No, the case play says to ignore the "violation" of crossing the plane unless it actually interferes with the thrower's efforts to make a throwin. In that case, go directly to technical foul, do not pass Delay of Game Warning.
It says nothing about ignoring an actual foul.
Case play 9.2.10, still in there.

I know you're being jocular here, but you don't want to give the impression that you'd skip the DOG warning that must come with the INT/T in this situation.